Summary of Issue: Outside Of Canada

Decision A420.16 Full Text of Decision A420.16

The Attorney General of Canada seeked judicial review of a decision by the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal (SST-AD), affirming the decision of the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal (SST-GD), which established that the claimant did not knowingly make false or misleading representations in his claims for employment insurance benefits. In doing so, the SST-AD found that the imposition of a penalty was not justified and that the issuance of a notice of violation was also not justified .The application for judicial review was allowed, and the file was referred back to the SST-AD for redetermination .

Decision 77630 Full Text of Decision 77630

The issue under appeal in this case is whether the imposition of a penalty under section 38 of the EIA, for knowingly making a false or misleading statement, was justified. In this case, the claimant, who had been receiving benefits, travelled outside Canada and answered "no" in her reports to the question: Were you outside Canada during the period of this report? The Commission wrote to the claimant to notify her that a penalty had been imposed for knowingly making misrepresentations. The BOR unanimously dismissed the appeal. The claimant is now appeling from the decision to the Umpire, claiming that the BOR based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact. The decision of the BOR is completely reasonable and there is no reason for the Umpire to intervene. The appeal to the Umpire is dismissed.

Decision 72847 Full Text of Decision 72847

The claimant was outside Canada and not entitled to receive EI benefits for that period. This decision resulted in an overpayment, a penalty and a notice of violation. Claimant said that he went to Yugoslavia to visit his partner who was living there for health reasons. The claimant argued that he was still available for work as he was in contact with members of his family in Canada and he would have returned home quickly if a job became available. Claimant admitted in a signed statement that he knew that he had to declare any trip outside Canada, and had his brother filled out his statements while he was away. The appeal is dismissed by Umpire.

Decision 68132 Full Text of Decision 68132

From Peru, the claimant filed her Teledec cards, and was notified by the same medium that she was obliged to declare any absence from the country, which she did not do. There must be confirmation of the overpayment of $2,420.00, confirmation of the Commission's determination as to the false or misleading statements, and lastly the serious violation noted must be maintained. See similar decision, CUB 68078.

Decision 63026 Full Text of Decision 63026

Apart from the seven days allowed to attend his grandmother's funeral the claimant is not entitled to benefits while outside of Canada under section 54 of the UI Regulations. The claimant was prevented from returning to Canada because of illness. The Umpire concluded that the claimant does not come under any other exceptions and by stating he was available for work he was in fact making false and misleading statements.

Decision 34603A Full Text of Decision 34603A

Penalty imposed for knowingly making 3 false or misleading statements for not disclosing his absence from Canada. Umpire ruled that in order for the claimant to have knowingly made false or misleading statements he would have to have thought that he was not entitled to benefits but made the claim regardless. However in this case, the claimant could not knowingly have made false or misleading statements when he was of the opinion that he was entitled to benefits.

Decision 24017 Full Text of Decision 24017

According to the Board, the fact that the claimant stated that she was available on her cards which she returned from Florida through her son is no proof that she willingly misled the Commission. The Board erred in requiring a heavier burden of proof from the Commission.

Decision 23622 Full Text of Decision 23622

Left for 6 weeks on a planned overseas vacation and had his family mail his reports cards to Singapore. He felt he was always ready and capable of working. This excuse cannot be accepted especially as he did not use the self-addressed envelopes from the Commission. Penalty of $2,130 upheld.

Decision 19368 Full Text of Decision 19368

While there is no specific question on the report cards asking whether the claimant is still residing in Canada, the question goes to his availability. He answered "yes", did not fill out the change of address and disregarded the notice not to mail the card outside of Canada.